Slashdot Mirror
The IPCC's Shifting Position On Nuclear Energy
Lasrick writes Suzanne Waldman writes about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its stand on nuclear power over the course of its five well-known climate change assessment reports. The IPCC was formed in 1988 as an expert panel to guide the drafting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, ratified in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The treaty's objective is to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a safe level. Waldman writes: 'Over time, the organization has subtly adjusted its position on the role of nuclear power as a contributor to de-carbonization goals," and she provides a timeline of those adjustments.
I live in a desert, we host a very large nuclear power plant
They purify and re-use ground water with many cooling ponds built into their cycle
There is no need for a continuously flowing river in this design
Wherever You Go, There You Are
1 with a modern reactor?
So far we've had a partial meltdown that hurt nobody, an "accident" so cartoonishly stupid that it should more accurately be called insider sabotage, and an outdated reactor that was hit with multiple extreme natural disasters simultaneously.
These emotional knee-jerk reactions from Japan, Germany and others are counterproductive and could hurt financially if any kind of global carbon-trading scheme is put in place. Besides, I prefer my nuclear waste nice and contained rather than flowing continuously from the smokestack of a coal power plant.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'd have no problem at all with that. Nearest one is about 40 miles away now....
Note that I'm biased, of course. Having worked in the field back in the day, I know a lot more about the subject than most /.'ers....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The IPCC doesn't write a single report. The have 3 different working groups, each writing their own report. The first group deals with the science, the second deals with the impacts, and the third deals with mitigation. Obviously, the 3rd one is the most politically influenced.
How do they exactly phrase their call for centralized authority ? What's the page number ?